Terrific article on political and environmental policy – highly recommended

The Potential and Risks of Geoengineering

By Jamais Cascio http://www.wfs.org/content/potential-and-risks-geoengineering

When it comes to our planet’s environment, “isolationism” is impossible. By the year 2030, environmental policy and political policy will be completely inseparable at the global level. Arguably, that should be the case today. As we gain a deeper understanding of ecosystem processes, we’re seeing how actions on one side of the world can dramatically change the lives of people on the other. Interconnectedness is a challenge we can’t run away from.

By 2030, though, the connection between politics and the environment could show up in two very different ways: as a catalyst for war, or as a new model for handling complexity.

The Complexity of Environmental Challenges,
The Challenge of Complexity

Global delays in reducing carbon emissions will likely force the human race to embark upon a set of geoengineering-based responses, not as the complete solution, but simply as a disaster-avoidance measure.

Geoengineering, the deliberate manipulation of the earth’s natural systems, may include various forms of thermal management, such as stratospheric sulfate injections or high-altitude seawater sprays, and might also embrace some form of carbon capture via ocean fertilization, or even something not yet fully described. The mid-2010s is the probable starting period for these strategies, in my view. Geoengineering advocates may see the mid-2010s as already too late, while opponents would likely want more time to study their models.

Once we start down the geoengineering path, we’ll see that talking about it is much simpler than doing it. The unexpected feedbacks and unintended consequences would quickly become manifest, and the reactions could be volatile. Planetary management could become a political flashpoint, leading to outbreaks of violence, especially if different regions have divergent results or demand incompatible outcomes. A good portion of international diplomacy would focus on just how to control climate engineering technologies and deal with their consequences.

Ours will be a challenging world to navigate in the next couple of decades, and not just because of conflicts over who’s in charge or who’s to blame for which problems. We’ll be dealing with multiple complex global system breakdowns — from the ongoing financial system crisis, peak oil production, climate disruption, and the very real possibility of food system collapse. These crises demand greater information analysis, longer-term thinking, and more accountability than traditional forms of global politics have tended to offer. For centuries, nations have been ready to commit “hard power,” military force, when necessary to push their interests. In the twentieth century, nations recognized the value of “soft power,” cultural influence, as a way of gaining allies. But these multifaceted system problems don’t lend themselves to either the hard or soft power approach. They call out a need for a new model to meet the needs of the new century.

It’s hard to exaggerate the sheer complexity of the situation. If the great obstacle to our continued survival and prosperity as a species were “just” global warming, achieving success would be tricky but doable. The challenge we face is global warming plus resource collapse plus pandemic disease plus post-hegemonic disorder plus the myriad other issues.

Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism.

Solutions to Complex Challenges

We know what we need to do to mitigate climate change, and we have the necessary technology. What we’re missing, more than anything else, is the political will. But politics and society can change — we’ve seen it happen before. It might take a generational shift, it might take a disaster (or three), or it might just come from an expanding understanding of what we’re doing to the planet. It will take a lot of people working on fixes and solutions and ideas — not simply top-down mandates, but massively multi-participant quests, across thousands of communities and hundreds of countries, bringing in literally millions of minds. The very description reeks of innovation potential.

• Innovation in energy. A mix of nuclear, wind, solar, and a few others, such as ocean thermal energy conversion and hydrokinetic power, will overtake fossil fuels by the 2020s, even if China and India retain coal-fired power plants. If handled poorly, such recalcitrance may end up being a driver for significant global tension. If handled well, it could be an engine for new markets and development.

• Innovation in urbanization. More than half the planet lives in cities today, and that proportion is increasing quickly. Sensor dust, embedded computing, augmented reality, and a host of other emerging technologies hold the potential to “awaken” cities as smart environments. But “smart city” has to mean more than just lots of urbanites knowing their own carbon footprint; it must come to refer to a far better understanding of what can be done to improve things.

• Innovation in materials and manufacturing. By the year 2030, molecular fabrication (“nanofactories”) will significantly boost the world’s productive capacities. Although nanofactories have the potential to pose another complex system problem, the kinds of political institutions and models we’ll be forced to develop in response to ongoing environmental crises can serve as platforms for handling issues such as this one. If we can handle the political and social complexities of global warming (and likely geoengineering) in the 2010s and 2020s, we’ll be well-positioned to handle potentially even more disruptive events as the century continues.

Then the Singularity happens in 2048 and we’re all uploaded by force.

I’m kidding about that last one.

I think.

About the Author

Jamais Cascio is a writer, futurist, and ethicist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He specializes in design strategies and possible outcomes for future scenarios. Cascio has written for the The Atlantic and The Wall Street Journal, and is the author of Hacking the Earth: Understanding the Consequences of Geoengineering (Lulu.com, 2009). He was one of Foreign Policy magazine’s “Top 100 Global Thinkers” for 2009.


How 10 Billion Can Survive


Jamais Cascio is a research fellow at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, Calif., and a senior fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. In 2009, Foreign Policy named him one of its Top 100 Global Thinkers.

Population projections 90 years out – even 40 years out – are risky. There are big challenges to human civilization already under way this century, such as climate disruption and food sustainability, and more on the horizon. If any of them hit as hard as we fear, or if our responses are insufficient, there’s little likelihood that Earth’s population would get to 10 billion people. In a way, getting there would be a sign of successful navigation of this century’s problems.

If Western diets and post-industrial consumption habits can be changed, the planet might make it.

Such a level of population is itself a challenge, but positive scenarios are possible. They all require a fundamental shift in resource use, changes to our behavior, and the thoughtful application of emerging technologies.

For example, modern agriculture would be unable to support 10 billion people with a Western diet; conversely, a primarily vegetarian diet, with meat protein coming from “cultured meat” producers, would be fine. Ten billion people with post-industrial world consumption habits would overwhelm resource supplies and waste streams; conversely, production economies using cradle-to-cradle design or (in the longer term) molecular fabrication technologies would make the very concept of “waste” a thing of the past.

Most notably, a planet of 10 billion people all wanting a Western standard of living would require at least an order-of-magnitude more energy. There’s no way to provide that energy without causing massive environmental damage.

But according to Dr. Art Rosenfeld, formerly of the California Energy Commission, a moderate but sustained increase in how efficiently we use energy would, over time, have an enormous impact. By focusing on efficiency, we could at the end of this century support 10 billion people at a universally high standard of living for less energy than we use today.

A 10 billion-human planet worth living on is possible – but only if we think ahead.